Pros And Cons V. Defendant Medic East

1. I am an attorney with the law firm of ALAN RIPKA & ASSOCIATES, LLP, the attorneys for Plaintiff Lurline McKenzie Moses herein and as such I am fully familiar with the proceedings and pleadings herein.

2. I make this affirmation in further support of Plaintiff’s cross motion to preclude Defendant’s IME. As Defendant’s original motion for summary judgment is fully briefed, the undersigned will offer no further comment on the merits of that motion herein.

3. In their opposition, Defendant Medic East spends much time trying to argue that they did nothing wrong in withholding the dash cam video. However, upon reading their opposition, it is abundantly clear that Defendant Medic East has absolutely no excuse for withholding this information.

Defendant Medic East spends much time pointing out that they did eventually turn over the video in dispute. However, their purported evidence and arguments are simply a reiteration of what the undersigned said in the original cross motion. It is not in dispute that in February of 2023, the undersigned called Defense counsel and demanded the video, at which point it was provided. This is not the crux of Plaintiff’s cross motion.

5. To reiterate, the request for the video was made on June 30, 2020… two and a half years before Defendant Medic East produced the video. As noted in the original cross motion, Defendant Medic East objected to producing the video when it was requested and no attempt to amend was ever made.

6. Defendant Medic East then allowed depositions of two parties, Plaintiff and Codefendant, to occur without producing the video. Then, mysteriously, Defendant Medic East conveniently remembered they had the video and sent it to Dr. Gruson for his IME of Plaintiff. Dr. Gruson then in turn used the video to make various allegations regarding causation of Plaintiff’s

Plaintiff was further prejudiced by this conduct in that she was required to testify at her deposition including questioning from Defendant Medic East’s attorneys who had video in their possession of the accident yet still feigned ignorance at said deposition.

10. In their response to the cross motion, it bears repeating that Defendant Medic East does not dispute being in possession of the video in dispute, nor do they dispute their failure to turn the video over from when it was originally demanded until after they filed for summary judgment. They simply argue “we turned it over eventually”, completely ignoring the severe prejudice and trying to downplay the bad faith stemming from their conduct.

11. Similarly the reasoning for the refusal to disclose Dr. Rigney’s radiological reviews is equally misleading. While Plaintiff appreciates that Defendant Medic East has advised the court that Dr. Rigney will not be called as a witness in the instant matter, an admission Plaintiff intends to enforce should Defendant Medic East suddenly change their mind later, it does not change the fact that said reports were supplied to Dr.